File No. 333-167585
This supplement amends, supplements, modifies, and/or provides information
in addition to that contained in the Prospectus of the Teucrium Sugar Fund dated July 6, 2012. It should be read in its entirety
and kept together with your Prospectus for future reference.
The breakeven analysis below indicates the approximate
dollar returns and percentage returns required for the redemption value of the selling price per Share, assuming a selling price
of $17.56 (the NAV per Share as of November 30, 2012), to equal the amount invested twelve months after the investment was made.
This breakeven analysis refers to the redemption of baskets by Authorized Purchasers and is not related to any gains an individual
investor would have to achieve in order to break even. The breakeven analysis is an approximation only.
(1) The
Fund is obligated to pay the Sponsor a management fee at the annual rate of 1.00% of the Fund’s average daily net assets,
payable monthly.
(2) Authorized
Purchasers are required to pay a Creation Basket fee of $250 for each order they place to create one or more baskets. An
order must be at least one basket, which is 25,000 Shares. This breakeven analysis assumes a hypothetical investment in a
single Share so the Creation Basket fee is $.01 (250/25,000).
(3) The
amount is based on actual brokerage fees for the Fund calculated on an annualized basis.
(4) Other
Fund Fees and Expenses include legal, printing, accounting, custodial, administration, bookkeeping, transfer agency and Distributor
costs. The per-share cost of these fixed or estimated fees has been calculated assuming that the Fund has $1.4 million
in assets which was the approximate amount of assets as of November 30, 2012.
(5) The
Fund earns interest on funds it deposits with the futures commission merchant and the Custodian and it estimates that the interest
rate will be 0.07% based on the interest rate on three-month Treasury Bills currently realized by the Fund. The actual rate
may vary.
The Dodd-Frank Act which
was enacted in response to the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, significantly alters the regulatory regime to which the securities
and commodities markets are subject. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act alters the regulation of commodity interests. Provisions
of the new law include the requirement that position limits be established on a wide range of commodity interests, including energy-based,
metal and agricultural commodity futures contracts, options on such futures contracts and cleared and uncleared swaps that are
economically equivalent to such futures contracts and options (“Reference Contracts”); new registration and recordkeeping
requirements for swap market participants; capital and margin requirements for “swap dealers” and “major swap
participants,” as determined by the new law and applicable regulations; and the mandatory use of clearinghouse mechanisms
for sufficiently standardized swap transactions that are currently entered into in the over-the-counter market. In late 2011, the
CFTC adopted rules that impose new position limits on Reference Contracts involving 28 energy, metals and agricultural commodities
(the “Position Limit Rules”). The Position Limit Rules
were scheduled to become
effective on October 12, 2012. However, on September 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated
these regulations on the basis of ambiguities in the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (as modified by the Dodd-Frank Act)
upon which the regulations were based. In its September 28th decision, the court remanded the Position Limit Rules to the CFTC
with instructions to use its expertise and experience to resolve the ambiguities in the statute. On November 15, 2012, the CFTC
indicated that it will move forward with an appeal of the District Court’s decision to vacate the Position Limit Rules. At
this time, it is not possible to predict how the CFTC’s appeal could affect the Fund, but it may be substantial and adverse.
Furthermore, until such time as the appeal is resolved or, if applicable revisions to the Position Limit Rules are proposed and
adopted, the regulatory architecture in effect prior to the enactment of the Position Limit Rules will govern transactions in commodities
and related derivatives. Under that system, the CFTC enforces federal limits on speculation in agricultural products (e.g., corn,
wheat and soy), while futures exchanges enforce accountability levels for agricultural and certain energy products (e.g., oil and
gas). As a result, the Fund may be limited with respect to the size of its investments in any commodities subject to these limits.
Finally, subject to certain narrow exceptions, the vacated Position Limit Rules would have required the aggregation, for purposes
of the position limits, of all positions in the 28 Reference Contracts held by a single entity and its affiliates, regardless of
whether such positions existed on U.S. futures exchanges, non-U.S. futures exchanges, in cleared swaps or in over-the-counter swaps.
The CFTC is presently considering new aggregation rules, under a rulemaking proposal that is distinct from the Position Limit Rules.
At this time, it is unclear how any modified aggregation rules may affect the Fund, but it may be substantial and adverse. By way
of example, the aggregation rules in combination with any potential revised Position Limit Rules may negatively impact the ability
of the Fund to meet its investment objectives through limits that may inhibit the Sponsor’s ability to sell additional Creation
Baskets of the Fund.
The CFTC, along with the SEC and other federal
regulators, has been tasked with developing the rules and regulations enacting the provisions noted above. To date, the CFTC has
issued proposed versions of all of the rules it is required to promulgate under the Dodd-Frank Act, but it continues to issue proposed
versions of additional rules that it has authority to promulgate. In addition, the CFTC has begun to issue final rules under the
Dodd-Frank Act, including rules relating to recordkeeping and reporting of swap transactions, mandatory clearing of certain classes
of credit default swaps and interest rate swaps, as well as the definition of key terms such as “swap” and “swap
dealer.” Final rules are likely to continue to be adopted into 2013.
The effect of future regulatory change on the Funds, and the exact
timing of such changes, is impossible to predict but it may be substantial and adverse. Specifically, the new law, the rules that
have been promulgated thereunder, and the rules that are expected to be promulgated may negatively impact the ability of the Funds
to meet their investment objectives, either through position limits or requirements imposed on them and/or on their counterparties.
In particular, new position limits imposed on the Funds or any counterparties may impact the ability of the Funds to invest in
a manner that most efficiently meets its investment objective. New requirements, including capital imposed on the counterparties
of the Funds and the mandatory clearing and margining of swaps, may increase the cost of the Fund’s investments and doing
business.
Management of the Sponsor
The section entitled “Management of the Sponsor”
on pages 32- 34 of the Prospectus is hereby deleted and replaced, in its entirety, with the following:
Management of the Sponsor
In general, under the Sponsor’s Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement, as amended from time to time, the Sponsor (and as a result the Trust
and the Fund) is managed by the officers of the Sponsor. The Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor is responsible for
the overall strategic direction of the Sponsor and will have general control of its business. The Chief Investment Officer and
President of the Sponsor is primarily responsible for new investment product development with respect to the Fund and each of the
Teucrium Funds. The Chief Operating Officer has assumed primary responsibility for trade operations, trade execution, and portfolio
activities with respect to the Fund. The Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Compliance Officer acts as
the Sponsor’s principal financial and accounting officer, which position includes the functions previously performed by the
Treasurer of the Sponsor, and administers the Sponsor’s regulatory compliance
programs. Furthermore, certain fundamental
actions regarding the Sponsor, such as the removal of officers, the addition or substitution of members, or the incurrence of liabilities
other than those incurred in the ordinary course of business and
de minimis
liabilities, may not be taken without the affirmative
vote of a majority of the Class A members (which is generally defined as the affirmative vote of Mr. Gilbertie and one of the other
two Class A members). The Sponsor has no board of directors, and the Trust has no board of directors or officers. The
three Class A members of the Sponsor are Sal Gilbertie, Dale Riker and Carl N. Miller III.
The Officers of the Sponsor, two of whom are also Class A members
of the Sponsor, are the following:
Sal Gilbertie
has been the
President of the Sponsor since its inception and its Chief Investment Officer since September 2011, was approved by the NFA as
a principal of the Sponsor on September 23, 2009, and was registered as an associated person of the Sponsor on November 10, 2009.
He maintains his main business office at 653A Garcia, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Effective July 16, 2012, Mr. Gilbertie
was registered with the NFA as the Branch Manager for this location. From October 2005 until December 2009, Mr. Gilbertie was employed
by Newedge USA, LLC, a futures commission merchant and broker-dealer registered with the CFTC and the SEC (whose business is described
in greater detail below under “The Service Providers”), where he headed the Renewable Fuels/Energy Derivatives OTC
Execution Desk and was an active futures contract and over-the-counter derivatives trader and market maker in multiple classes
of commodities. (Between January 2008 and October 2008, he also held a comparable position with Newedge Financial, Inc.,
a futures commission merchant and an affiliate of Newedge USA, LLC.) From October 1998 until October 2005, Mr. Gilbertie
was principal and co-founder of Cambial Asset Management, LLC, an adviser to two private funds that focused on equity options,
and Cambial Financing Dynamics, a private boutique investment bank. While at Cambial Asset Management, LLC and Cambial Financing
Dynamics, Mr. Gilbertie served as principal and managed the day-to-day activities of the business and the portfolio of both companies.
Mr. Gilbertie is 52 years old.
Dale Riker
has been the
Secretary of the Sponsor since January 2010, and its Chief Executive Officer since September 2011, was approved by the NFA as a
principal of the Sponsor on October 29, 2009, and was registered as an associated person of the Sponsor on February 17, 2010.
He maintains his main business office at 232 Hidden Lake Road, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 and is responsible for the overall
strategic direction of the Sponsor and has general control of its business. Mr. Riker was Treasurer of the Sponsor from its
inception until September 2011. From February 2005 to the present, Mr. Riker has been President of Cambial Emerging
Markets LLC, a consulting company specializing in emerging market equity investment. As President of Cambial Emerging Markets
LLC, Mr. Riker had responsibility for business strategy, planning and operations. From July 1996 to February 2005, Mr. Riker
was a private investor. Mr. Riker is married to the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Compliance
Officer of the Sponsor, Barbara Riker. Mr. Riker is 54 years old.
Barbara Riker
began working
for the Sponsor in July 2010 providing accounting and compliance support. She has been the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting
Officer and Chief Compliance Officer for Teucrium since September 2011, was approved by the NFA as a principal of the Sponsor on
October 19, 2011, and has a background in finance, accounting, investor relations, corporate communications and operations. She
maintains her main business office at 232 Hidden Lake Road, Brattleboro, Vermont 05301. From September 1980 to February
1993, Ms. Riker worked in various financial capacities for Pacific Telesis Group, the California-based Regional Bell Operating
Company, and its predecessors. In February 1993, with the spin-off of AirTouch Communications from Pacific Telesis Group,
Ms. Riker was selected to lead the Investor Relations team for the global mobile phone operator. In her capacity as
Executive Director – Investor Relations and Corporate Communications from February 1993 to June 1995, AirTouch completed
its initial public offering and was launched as an independent publicly-traded company. In June 1995, she was named Chief Financial
Officer of AirTouch International and, in addition to her other duties, served on the board of several of the firm’s joint
ventures, both private and public, across Europe. In June 1997, Ms. Riker moved into an operations capacity as the District
General Manager for AirTouch Paging’s San Francisco operations. In February 1998 she was named Vice President
and General Manager of AirTouch Cellular for Arizona and New Mexico. Ms. Riker retired in July 1999, coincident with
the purchase of AirTouch by Vodafone PLC and remained retired until she began working for the Sponsor. Ms. Riker graduated
with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Cal State – East Bay in 1980. Ms. Riker is married
to the Chief Executive Officer of the Sponsor, Dale Riker. Ms. Riker is 54 years old.
Steve Kahler
, Chief Operating
Officer, began working for the Sponsor in November 2011 as Managing Director in the trading division. He became the Chief Operating
Officer on May 24, 2012 and has primary responsibility for the Trade Operations for the Funds. He maintains his main business
office at 13520 Excelsior Blvd., Minnetonka, MN 55345. Mr. Kahler was registered as an Associated Person of the Sponsor on
November 25, 2011, approved as a Branch Manager of the Sponsor on March 16, 2012 and approved by the NFA as a Principal of the
Sponsor on May 16, 2012. Prior to his employment with the Sponsor, Mr. Kahler worked for Cargill Inc., an international producer
and marketer of food, agricultural, financial and industrial products and services, from April 2006 until November 2011 in the
Energy Division as Senior Petroleum Trader. In October 2006 and while employed at Cargill Inc., Mr. Kahler was approved as an NFA
member registered Associated Person under Cargill Commodity Services Inc., a commodity trading affiliate of Cargill Inc. from September
13, 2006 to November 9, 2011. Mr. Kahler graduated from the University of Minnesota with a Bachelors of Agricultural Business Administration
in 1992 and is 45 years old.
The third Class-A member of the Sponsor
is the following:
Carl N. (Chuck) Miller III
was approved by the NFA as a principal of the Sponsor on November 10, 2009 and was registered as an associated person of the Sponsor
on April 19, 2010. He maintains his main business office at 653A Garcia, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Mr. Miller has
certain voting authority as a Class A member of the Sponsor as described above, but is not involved with the Sponsor’s day-to-day
trading or operations.
Mr. Kahler and Mr. Gilbertie are primarily
responsible for making trading and investment decisions for the Fund and other Teucrium Funds, and for directing Fund and other
Teucrium Fund trades for execution.
Messrs. Gilbertie, Riker, Kahler and Miller
and Ms. Riker are individual “principals,” as that term is defined in CFTC Rule 3.1, of the Sponsor. These individuals
are principals due to their positions and/or due to their ownership interests in the Sponsor. Beneficial ownership interests of
the principals, if any, are shown under the section entitled “Security Ownership of Principal Shareholders and Management”
below and any of the principals may acquire beneficial interests in the Fund in the future. In addition, each of the three Class
A members of the Sponsor are registered with the CFTC as associated persons of the Sponsor and are NFA associate members. GFI Group
LLC is a principal for the Sponsor under CFTC Rules due to its ownership of certain non-voting securities of the Sponsor.
Prior
Performance of the Sponsor and Affiliates
The performance data for the Fund and the Teucrium Funds on pages
34-43 of the Prospectus is hereby deleted and replaced, in its entirety, with the following:
Prior Performance of the Sponsor and Affiliates
THIS POOL OPERATOR AND ITS TRADING PRINCIPALS
HAVE LIMITED EXPERIENCE OPERATING ANY OTHER POOLS OR TRADING ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS.
The Sponsor and its trading principals have
limited experience operating commodity pools. Although the Sponsor currently operates seven commodity pools, the Teucrium
Funds, none of the Teucrium Funds began operating prior to 2010.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR THE FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE
OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Sugar Fund commenced trading and
investment operations on September 19, 2011. The Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately offered pool pursuant
to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(2);
or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
350,004
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
7,824,567
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
17.56
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
1,395,753
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
|
(11.06)
April 2012
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
|
(29.96)
September 19,
2011 (Inception)
– October 2012
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by the fund
over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month figures. The
worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline, but can be
a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline from any month-end
NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For example,
if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2 in April,
a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown” to
be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended as
of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.07
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.82)
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.06)
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.70)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.39
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.51)
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
(3.32)
|
%***
|
|
|
(0.27)
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
3.19
|
%
|
|
|
(5.66)
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
(5.89)
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
(1.75)
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
(7.76)
|
%**
|
|
|
(23.85)
|
%**
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Not annualized.
***Partial month from September 19, 2011.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR
THE TEUCRIUM CORN FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Corn Fund commenced trading and investment operations
on June 9, 2010. The Teucrium Corn Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately offered pool pursuant
to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(2);
or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
4,525,004
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
184,191,470
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
47.79
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
45,405,379
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(19.91)
September 2011
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(27.42)
August 2011 –
May 2012
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by
the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month
figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of investment
operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline, but can
be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline from any
month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end.
For example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by
$2 in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.07
|
%
|
|
|
(2.48)
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.51
|
%
|
|
|
0.76
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.26
|
%
|
|
|
(4.90)
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.36
|
%
|
|
|
(0.84)
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.97)
|
%
|
|
|
(6.41)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
3.56
|
%**
|
|
|
(10.80)
|
%
|
|
|
15.60
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
7.38
|
%
|
|
|
11.31
|
%
|
|
|
21.06
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
5.54
|
%
|
|
|
11.39
|
%
|
|
|
0.14
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
10.74
|
%
|
|
|
(19.91)
|
%
|
|
|
(4.99)
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
15.14
|
%
|
|
|
7.90
|
%
|
|
|
(0.43)
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
(8.23)
|
%
|
|
|
(8.46)
|
%
|
|
|
(0.83)
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
13.78
|
%
|
|
|
5.81
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
56.24
|
%***
|
|
|
7.32
|
%
|
|
|
14.00
|
%***
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Partial from June 9, 2010.
*** Not annualized.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the Teucrium
Corn Fund. Most significantly, the Fund and the Teucrium Corn Fund invest primarily in interests in different commodities, the
prices of which will not move exactly in tandem. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR
TEUCRIUM WTI CRUDE OIL FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium WTI Crude Oil Fund commenced trading
and investment operations on February 23, 2011. The Teucrium WTI Crude Oil Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately
offered pool pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation
4.10(d)(2); or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
125,002
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
6,077,199
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
39.22
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
1,961,550
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(16.00)
May 2012
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(31.97)
April 2011
– October 2012
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced
by the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect
intra-month figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception
of investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline,
but can be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline
from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For
example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2
in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.19
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
%**
|
|
|
6.51
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.68
|
%
|
|
|
(3.09)
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.25
|
%
|
|
|
(0.00)
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.33)
|
%
|
|
|
(16.00)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5.90)
|
%
|
|
|
(1.10)
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.05)
|
%
|
|
|
1.37
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9.20)
|
%
|
|
|
7.60
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.85)
|
%
|
|
|
(4.14)
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.86
|
%
|
|
|
(5.26
|
)%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.66
|
%
|
|
|
2.64
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.05)
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11.10)
|
%***
|
|
|
(11.77)
|
%***
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Partial from February 23, 2011.
*** Not annualized.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the
Teucrium WTI Crude Oil Fund. Most significantly, the Fund and the Teucrium WTI Crude Oil Fund invest primarily in interests in
different commodities, the prices of which will not move exactly in tandem. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future
results.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR
TEUCRIUM NATURAL GAS FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Natural Gas Fund commenced trading
and investment operations on February 1, 2011. The Teucrium Natural Gas Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately
offered pool pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation
4.10(d)(2); or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
500,004
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
8,737,593
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
12.08
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
4,832,877
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(14.69)
November 2011
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(55.92)
February 1,
2011 (Inception)
– March 2012
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by
the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month
figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of
investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline,
but can be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline
from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For
example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2
in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12.53)
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.08)
|
%
|
|
|
(0.08)
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.49
|
%
|
|
|
(8.70)
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.91
|
%
|
|
|
0.45
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.22)
|
%
|
|
|
(0.18)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.68)
|
%
|
|
|
7.06
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.22)
|
%
|
|
|
7.61
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.17)
|
%
|
|
|
(10.68)
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.35)
|
%
|
|
|
10.73
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.51
|
%
|
|
|
1.27
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14.69)
|
%
|
|
|
(5.25)
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14.12)
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44.76)
|
%**
|
|
|
(12.53)
|
%**
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Not annualized.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the
Teucrium Natural Gas Fund. Most significantly, the Fund and the Teucrium Natural Gas Fund invest primarily in interests in different
commodities, the prices of which will not move exactly in tandem. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
PERFORMANCE DATA
FOR TEUCRIUM SOYBEAN FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Soybean Fund commenced trading
and investment operations on September 19, 2011. The Teucrium Soybean Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately
offered pool pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation
4.10(d)(2); or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
775,004
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
19,820,121
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
24.50
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
6,737,695
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(12.36)
September 2011
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(16.64)
September 19,
2011 (Inception) – November 2011
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by
the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month
figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of
investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline,
but can be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline
from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For
example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2
in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.51)
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.48
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.98
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.08
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9.08)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.27
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.71
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.28
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12.36)
|
%***
|
|
|
(6.57)
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.42
|
%
|
|
|
(2.33)
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.13)
|
%
|
|
|
(5.62)
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.89
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12.56)
|
%**
|
|
|
12.08
|
%**
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Not annualized.
*** Partial month from September 19, 2011.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the Teucrium
Soybean Fund. Most significantly, the Fund and the Teucrium Soybean Fund invest primarily in interests in different commodities,
the prices of which will not move exactly in tandem. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR
TEUCRIUM WHEAT FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Wheat Fund commenced trading and
investment operations on September 19, 2011. The Teucrium Wheat Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately offered
pool pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation
4.10(d)(2); or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
325,004
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
7,458,211
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
23.55
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
2,943,301
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(10.20
September 2011
|
)%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(20.36
September 19,
2011 (Inception) – May 2012
|
)%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by
the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month
figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of
investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline,
but can be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline
from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For
example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2
in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.31)
|
%
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.38)
|
%
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.56)
|
%
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.11)
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.07)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.90
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.78
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.12)
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.20)
|
%***
|
|
|
0.49
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.30
|
%
|
|
|
(2.20)
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8.50)
|
%
|
|
|
(1.92)
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.37
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.56)
|
%**
|
|
|
5.32
|
%**
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Not annualized.
*** Partial month from September 19, 2011.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the Teucrium
Wheat Fund. Most significantly, the Fund and the Teucrium Wheat Fund invest primarily in interests in different commodities, the
prices of which will not move exactly in tandem. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR TEUCRIUM AGRICULTRUAL
FUND
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE
OF FUTURE RESULTS
The Teucrium Agricultural Fund commenced trading
and investment operations on March 28, 2012. The Teucrium Agricultural Fund is listed on NYSE Arca and is neither: (i) a privately
offered pool pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; (ii) a multi-advisor pool as defined in CFTC Regulation
4.10(d)(2); or (iii) a principal-protected pool as defined in CFTC Regulation 4.10(d)(3).
|
Units of beneficial interest issued (from inception until November 30, 2012)
|
|
|
350,002
|
|
|
Aggregate gross sale price for units issued
|
|
$
|
17,706,678
|
|
|
NAV per share as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
50.93
|
|
|
Pool NAV as of November 30, 2012
|
|
$
|
2,546,682
|
|
|
Worst monthly percentage draw-down*
|
|
(6.75)
May 2012
|
%
|
|
Worst peak-to-valley draw-down**
|
|
(10.10)
March 2012 - May 2012
|
%
|
* A draw-down is a loss experienced by
the fund over a specified period. Draw-downs are measured on the basis of monthly returns only and do not reflect intra-month
figures. The worst monthly percentage draw-down reflects the largest single month loss sustained since inception of
investment operations.
** The worst peak-to-valley draw-down is the
largest percentage decline in the NAV per unit over the history of the fund. This need not be a continuous decline,
but can be a series of positive and negative returns. Worst peak-to-valley draw-down represents the greatest percentage decline
from any month-end NAV per unit that occurs without such month-end NAV per unit being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For
example, if the NAV per unit declined by $1 in each of January and February, increased by $1 in March and declined again by $2
in April, a “peak-to-valley drawdown” analysis conducted as of the end of April would consider that “drawdown”
to be continuing and to be $3 in amount, whereas if the NAV per unit had increased by $2 in March, the drawdown would have ended
as of the end of February at the $2 level.
|
|
|
Rates of Return*
|
|
|
Month
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
January
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.36
|
%***
|
|
April
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.59)
|
%
|
|
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.75)
|
%
|
|
June
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.85
|
%
|
|
July
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.55
|
%
|
|
August
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.70)
|
%
|
|
September
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.80)
|
%
|
|
October
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.66)
|
%
|
|
November
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.00)
|
%
|
|
December
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.86
|
%**
|
* The monthly rate of return is calculated by dividing
the ending NAV for a given month by the ending NAV for the previous month, subtracting 1 and multiplying this number by 100 to
arrive at a percentage increase or decrease.
** Not annualized.
*** Partial month from March 28, 2012.
There are significant differences between the Fund and the Teucrium
Agricultural Fund. Most significantly, the Teucrium Agricultural Fund primarily invests in shares of the Teucrium Corn Fund, the
Teucrium Sugar Fund, the Teucrium Soybean Fund and the Teucrium Wheat Fund, whereas the Teucrium Sugar Fund directly invests in
commodity interests. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.